Implications of land deals to livelihood security & natural - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Implications of land deals to livelihood security & natural resources management in Benshanguel Gumuz Regional State, Ethiopia Maru Shete FAC Research Fellow, Ethiopia

Structure of presentation

• 1. Background
• 2. Objectives
• 3. Description of the study area
• 4. Literature: Framework for evaluating land deals
• 5. Methodology
• 6. Result & discussion
• 7. Conclusion
• 8. Recommendations

Background

 Ethiopia’s poverty reduction strategy

focus on commercial agriculture with export diversification (Teshome 2006)  1.19 million ha of land is leased out to large scale farms in Ethiopia (Deininger et al 2011)  51% of them account to land acquisition by foreign investors

Cont...

Large scale farmland acquisition:

• As opportunity (von Braun and Meinzen-Dick

2009; Deininger et al 2011)

– Employment, technology transfer, increasing domestic availability of food supply

• As a threat to livelihood of rural poor (Mersha

2009; Grojnowski 2010; Fitzgerald 2010; Rice 2009; Mihretie 2010; McLure 2009)

– “Land grabbing”, “bio-colonialism”, “agro- colonialism”

Cont...

Ethiopian gov’t: country’s strategy to achieve food security objectives. Empirical findings are limited This study is conducted in Benshanguel Gumuz Region, Ethiopia.

Objectives

• To explore the nature of land deals
• To identify the implications of commercial

agriculture to natural resource management in Benshanguel Gumuz Regional State

• To describe the implications of land deals to

livelihood security in the region

Description of BGRS

 FDRE has 9 admin regions; BGRS is one of it

Twenty districts: two of them special districts  Total area: 50, 380 square kilometer  Five indigenous people: Berta, Gumuz, Shinasha, Mao & Komo Total population: 711, 702 (CSA 2007)  Indigenous people constitute 57.47% of the total population 14 people/ square km (CSA 2007) In BGRS, 525 agric. Projects at d/nt levels of

• peration

y = 1.0144x2 - 12.724x + 29.889 R² = 0.7151

• 50

50 100 150 200 250 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Trends of Agricultural Investment in Benshanguel Gumuz Regional State

• No. of Investment Projects in Benshanguel Gumuz

Regional State

• Poly. (No. of Investment Projects in Benshanguel

Gumuz Regional State )

Analysis based on figures from. EIA (2010)

Literature: Framework for evaluating land deals Deininger et al (2011) presented principles for responsible agro-investment:

• 1. Respecting land & resource use rights
• 2. Ensuring transparency, good governance, and a

proper enabling environment

• 3. Stakeholder participation
• 4. Responsible agro-investing
• 5. Environmental sustainability
• 6. Ensuring food security
• 7. Social sustainability

Methodology

 Design: exploratory  Secondary data sources

• Macro: MoARD, EIA
• Meso: Regional Offices
• Micro: District Offices

 Primary data sources

• Guba & Maokomo distrcits selected
• 10 FGD
• 24 KII: Elderly farmers, Development agents,

administrators, Experts, etc

• Household interview: 150 farmers

 Data analysis:  Qualitative  Principles of responsible agro-investing used as a framework

Result & discussion Objective 1: To explore the nature of land deals Do land deals respect land and resource rights?  First round assessment: 1,405,067 ha Second round assessment: 986,296.178 ha Allowance: 418, 770.822 ha of land for community land use Grazing land:0.5 ha/animal per year Population growth rate & carrying capacity not considered

Area of land identified for large scale agricultural investment in Benshanguel Gumuz Regional State

District Land demarcated for investment during first round survey (hectare) Land demarcated for community land uses (hectare) Land demarcated for investment during second round survey (hectare) Crop production Grazing Forest Guba 486,477 7484 9823 18000 377,206 Dangur 293,787 10806 17538 33100 211,055.578 Wonbera 144,982 4552 3748 4800 131,882 Sirba Abay 44,899 1936 3700 2812 36,451 Maokomo 80,527 NA NA NA NA Asosa 90,932 9076 8697 2350 71,841 Homosha 11,011 1156 1993 900 5,229.90 Menge 52,582 4254 6077 3800 38,451.80 Kumruk 35,940 3720 4661 2150 25,474.40 Sherkole 163,930 14648 18303.30 16395 88,704.50 Total 1,405,067 57632 74540.3 84307 986,296.178

Source: MoARD Investment Support Directorate (unpublished document)

Cont...

Direction of change Change in private landholding size Change in Communal landholding size Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Increased

46 30.7 7 6.3

Decreased

4 2.7 26 23.4

No change

100 66.7 78 70.3

Total

150 100.0 111 100.0

 23%: Decline in communal landholding size due to investment

34%: Local people are under competition with domestic investors for community water points in Bengo village of Guba district

Source: Own data

Table: Change in private and communal landholding size since the past five years

Cont...

Do land deals ensure transparency, good governance, and provide proper enabling environment?

• 1. Enabling environment/ incentive packages:
• Simplified licensing procedures
• The lease rate: 50-70 Birr/ha per year (BGRIO 2010)
• Lease period of 25-50 years (MoARD 2010)
• Five year exemption from income tax ((FDRE 2008)
• Duty free imports of machinaries (FDRE 2003)
• 2. Governance:
• Investment laws/ proclamations enacted:

 Regulation No. 84/2003 (FDRE 2003)  Proclamation No. 542/2007 (FDRE 2007)  Proclamation No. 280/2002 (FDRE 2002)  Regulation No. 146/2008 (FDRE 2008)

• Investment directives issued in 2010 (MoARD 2010)
• Deals signed:

– Defined types of crops to be produced, – Set proportion for domestic & foreign market, – But lacks enforcing capacity of some of directives/proclamations

Cont...

Region Nationality Land leased (ha) Crop type Market share in % (Domestic: Export) Capital (Million Birr) Employment Permanent Temporary SNNP Ethiopian 4003 Cotton 100 domestic 82.8 NA NA SNNP American 5000 Cotton and grains 50:50 65 28 2500 SNNP American 1000 Cotton, sesame, soyabean 30:70 NA 10 200 SNNP Canadian 2137 Cotton & grain 40:60 12.77 21 1139 SNNP Ethiopian 5000 Fruits, sesame and cotton 20:80 42.5 24 1000 SNNP Ethiopian 3000 Cotton and grains 50:50 13.6 45 585 SNNP Ethiopian 18,516 Cotton 100 domestic 323.24 300 10000 SNNP Indian 10,000 Cotton 50:50 32 200 10,000 Gambella Indian 25,000 Soya bean 30:70 1451 8000 Gambella British/Indian 27,000 Edible oil crops 10:90 918.4 7500 Gambella Indian 10,000 Rice 100 export 160.4 125 650 Gambella Indian 3012 Tea 100 export 631.4 141 4200 Benishangul Indian 50,000 Pongamia 20:80 984 50 2600 Benishangul American & Ethiopian 431 horticultural & crops 10:90 66.3 70 500 Benishangul Indian 25,000 Cotton 40:60 1177.2 NA NA Benishangul Ethiopian 5000 Sesame and beans 50:50 60.7 118 1000

Table 3: Origin of investors, market share and employment potential

Do land deals consult & participate stakeholders?

Table: Process of land aqcuisition in Ethiopia

Steps Before 2009 After 2009

1

Obtaining an investment license Obtaining an investment license

2

Identify appropriate land in the target area Identify appropriate land in the target area

3

Submit project document to regional investment office for verification of capital and project feasibility Submit project document to the Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development (MoARD) along with business plan

4

Negotiation with community elders and the investor submit the agreement of the community members to the regional investment office No negotiation, but MoARD checks if the land proposed by the investor lies in the land bank

5

Signing of lease agreement with the regional investment office The MoARD will then prepare a lease contract and arrange for proof of ownership and a map of the plot. Then lease agreement signed.

6

Land is transferred to the investor The MoARD write a letter to the regional investment

• ffice to demarcate and hand-over the land to the

investor

Source: Cotula et al (2009) Source: MoARD (2010)

Cont...

Deals are top-down:

• No negotation with community members
• Regional state not involved in the deals
• Don’t even know the contractual

agreements

Objective 2: Implication to natural resource managment

Do investors employ industry best practices? Does investment ensures environmental sustainability?  Investment Directives No. 13 (MoARD 2010) :

• Proper use of technologies to prevent fertility loss
• Protect and properly administer natural resources,
• Plant trees good for soil conservation,
• Replace trees & bushes cut down for agricultural purposes

 Proclamation No. 542/2007 (FDRE 2007):

• Forests shall be protected from forest fire and deforestation

activities

However,

• Industry best practices not applied: local varities + no

fertilizer use

• Widespread cutting & fire burning

Hence, failure to respect directives/proclamations

Forests under fire

Tree barks removed & burned

Cont...

• Investment land demarcation gave allowance for

community land uses, but

– Doesn’t consider carrying capacity – Doesn’t consider population growth rate

⇒ Encroachment to forest & grazing lands ⇒ Environmental sustainability challenged

• Forest cover: 60% in 1900 to less than 3% at

present (Dessie and Christiansson, 2008)

• With current rate, forest resource will be

depleted

– FGD: wild life disappeared, increase in daily temp – Local effect of climate change immense:

• Drought & crop failure
• Disaster risk

Hence, negative environmental impacts are tremendous

Objective 3: Implication of large scale investment to Livelihood security

Does investment ensures food security? 51% cover food demands from own production Only 9 months on average

Community food system

Farming: Crop & Livestock Gathering of wild foods Hunting Purchase from market

Cont... Investment Directive No. 10: large tract of land for biofuel crops, palm oil & date tree, rubber tree, cotton and sugar cane (MoARD 2010).

• Deals signed gave less priority to food crops

 Proc. No. 146/2008 & Reg No. 84/2003(FDRE 2003; FDRE 2008):

• 5-6 years income tax exemption if exports at least 50%
• f its production
• But 2-3 year exemption if for domestic market

 Deals signed set small proportion for domestic market

 Limited increase in domestic availability of food commodities  Negative implication towards meeting local food security targets

Deals gave less priority to food crops

Region Nationality Land leased (ha) Crop type Market share in % (Domestic: Export) Capital (Million Birr) Employment Permanent Temporary SNNP Ethiopian 4003 Cotton 100 domestic 82.8 NA NA SNNP American 5000 Cotton and grains 50:50 65 28 2500 SNNP American 1000 Cotton, sesame, soyabean 30:70 NA 10 200 SNNP Canadian 2137 Cotton & grain 40:60 12.77 21 1139 SNNP Ethiopian 5000 Fruits, sesame and Cotton 20:80 42.5 24 1000 SNNP Ethiopian 3000 Cotton and grains 50:50 13.6 45 585 SNNP Ethiopian 18,516 Cotton 100 domestic 323.24 300 10000 SNNP Indian 10,000 Cotton 50:50 32 200 10,000 Gambella Indian 25,000 Soya bean 30:70 1451 8000 Gambella British/India n 27,000 Edible oil crops 10:90 918.4 7500 Gambella Indian 10,000 Rice 100 export 160.4 125 650 Gambella Indian 3012 Tea 100 export 631.4 141 4200 Benishangul Indian 50,000 Pongamia 20:80 984 50 2600 Benishangul American & Ethiopian 431 horticultural & crops 10:90 66.3 70 500 Benishangul Indian 25,000 Cotton 40:60 1177.2 NA NA Benishangul Ethiopian 5000 Sesame and beans 50:50 60.7 118 1000

Cont...

♦Livestock: source of cash & food

• Let free to graze in the forest/bush

from June to November

• Incidence of theft increased

♦Beekeeping: upto 50 traditional bee hives

Cus of accelerated deforestation, these livelihood strategies are at risk

Livelihood at risk: Beekeeping & cattle

Women carrying Soyama

Traditional beehive made from soyama Traditional beehives hanging on tree

Cont... ♦ Wild foods: Sources of households food system

 Bamboo shoots and roots, Honey from wild bees Fruit trees: Mango, Phoenix, Burie, kega, Dokma, Agenba, Enjorie Ladies figure Wild yam from the forest, Taro/Godere and Cassava Hunting of wild animals of different type Baboon root (bush), Harakote (a runner tree in which both the fruit and branch are consumed), Seido/Kima Kokono/lenkuata (wild plant used as a spice food)

 Cus of accelerated deforestation, these livelihood strategies are at risk

Livelihood at risk: Wild food

Phoneix fruit as source of food

Root & shoot of bamboo tree as source of food

Livelihood at risk: Forest fruit

Natural mango tree

Children feeding on mango fruit

Cont...

♦ Natural resources: Cash sources

Biobabe/Agongush: a wild tree used as fruit and cash source by selling it in Sudan Soyama for traditional beehive construction Bamboo tree for construction & furniture Fuel wood & charcoal Traditional gold mining  Cus of accelerated deforestation, these livelihood strategies are at risk

Livelihood at risk: cash sources

Cont...

• Investment created limited employment
• Only few (19 family) members of the farming

community are employed

• Limited capacity of domestic investors
• Previous studies also confirmed this fact

(Cotula et al 2009).

• Proclamation No. 280/2002 (FDRE 2002):

 Investors can take their profit out of the country in any currency form

• Capital flight
• Limits employment opportunity from re-

investing profit

Conclusions

Threats:

 Weak linkage among stakeholders: Investment law & directives will not be implemented  Loss of community livelihood strategies  Accelerated deforestation & negative local effect of climate change  Accelerated loss of wildlife resources and forest reserves  Priority to export oriented crops: negative effect on local & national level food security

Potential benefits

• Foreign currency reserve
• Food availability in the domestic market: Only limited
• National income from land rent & income taxes
• Employment opportunities: Only limited

Recommendations

• Implace strong monitoring & support

mechanisms

• Improve land governance
• Enhance linkage & participation among

all relevant stakeholders

• Promote contract farming & out-growers

scheme  Social sustainability?

• Strengthen the voluntary based

villagization scheme